Doc

That is what I have witnessed nearly all of the time. A spooked deer almost always goes back the way they came, at least initially. Where they go after that is probably anybody's guess. The initial reactions prior to leaving are a whole variety of things that we have all seen. The blow (snort, whistle, whatever you want to call it), and then there is the old foot stomping, head bobbing tactic designed to get you to show yourself. And then I have seen those that simply drop their head, turn around and exit without a sound. How you could use any of that to your advantage is beyond me. If you are what spooks the deer, too bad ...... game over. If you knew that they were going to spook from someone else and could reposition yourself to cut off their escape route ...... maybe that might work, but that's an awful lot of "ifs".

What an amazing thread ...... 13641 views. That's a whole lot. Obviously this is one of the super hot button issues of the day. Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone's mind is being changed but the subject is certainly being well-covered. Doc

I don't know ....... I am having a hard time getting offended over this cartoon. I actually think it was kind of funny. But I do understand where some might be irritated at the unfair stereo-type that is being pushed. As everyone has pointed out it does point up an occasional real situation that is all too often a problem within our ranks. And I'll admit it is a little uncomfortable to have our dirty laundry displayed in public. Doc

Oh I get it all right.....lol. You finally made the effort to visit a dictionary and actually understand what it is you have been trying to talk about. Good for you. You still insist on putting things into definitions that aren't there (values and ethics are not opinions), but what the heck ...... at least you made the effort. I'll admit that holding a conversation with you is a bit difficult. It's kind of like trying to hit a moving target (reminds me of that game, Whack-A-Mole ;D ), so I guess I'll just have to give up on trying to make any sense out of what you are trying to explain about the program and wait until I get a chance to view it for myself, which is probably what I should have done in the first place. Doc

I occasionally can get sucked into a drive every so often, but it absolutely is not my favorite style of hunting. I guess I just like to be the only one responsible for whatever I get rather than a whole gang of people. It's just a personal wrinkle. Doc

Bowhunting is usually a morning and afternoon activity. What's kind of interesting is that I definitely have a lot more patience in the afternoon hunt. Every minute that goes by until quitting time gets better and better and more an more likely that the deer will be moving. AM ........ well not as much. After 8:00 or 9:00, things start getting less and less confident. The later it gets, the excuses to get up and start doing a bit of scouting start to get more and more convincing ...... lol. Usually around 10:00, I have convinced myself that all the deer are laying down in the bushes snoring and have no intentions of moving past my stand even though that probably is not true at all. Doc

Here's the breakdown of categories of hunting injuries in NY between 1989 and 1995: Mistaken for game - 35% out of sight - 22% in line of fire - 17% Unintentional discharge - 11% Struck by ricochet - 10% Other/unknown - 5% I don't think I am the only one who has noticed that most of the time, I only have to see a small flicker of that color to know that there is a hunter over there. I very seldom see the whole person first. It's usually that flash of orange through the trees that I see long before the guy is anywhere near me. Someone in camo?? ....... well I have already had it happen a few times where I never saw the guy until I was nearly in handshaking range. That's the kind of difference. Some of those categories above are situations where you can really picture that difference making a real impact. Particularly the first. I have yet to see an orange deer. Just imagine what it must be like live with the fact that you have just shot somebody, whether you are being held criminally liable or not, whether you have insurance or not, even if it really was not your fault. I don't know about anyone else, but I would have a hard time living with that no matter what court (criminal or civil) declared that it was not my fault. Why would somebody put me in that potential position? Yes, it may very well be that it was his stupidity that made all that happen, but is he truly the only victim? Is he the only one to pay for his stupidity? I think not. Doc

73% involving those not in blaze orange is a pretty high representation from that minority of hunters. That's simple math too. Also, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that all shooting accidents would be prevented by blaze orange. But when I see a 27% to 73% difference involving just one simple variable, you really don't have to be a math whiz to figure out the correct conclusion. As far as the color blind aspect, if you had read more deeply into the article, you would have discovered that not all color blindness is created equal or has the same effects and magnitude. In fact those numbers of the totally color blind are nearly insignificant. I know in the past we have had comments from some members who have one of the forms of color blindness, and as I recall, each one had a different description of what they really see. But anyway, the fact that some small percent of the population has this affliction certainly does not invalidate the whole concept of blaze orange as a safety measure. If that were the case, then we should scrap the stop light method of regulating traffic .... lol. Look there is no point in trying to pretend that the blaze orange concept of safety in hunting doesn't work. There are too many piles of data from this state and others that prove that it does. Is it flawless? ...... certainly not. Just like the safety on a gun is not flawless. But whether you like it or not, color is a very effective and universally known and used safety indicator. The bosses of the road crews understand that. And what is that funny color that I see on all construction zone signs these days? That's right ..... blaze orange. Manufacturers of products that have safety hazards on them understand the effectiveness for drawing attention. Examples can be found just about anywhere you want to look of warnings and safety items that rely on color to draw attention, and to argue that it doesn't work 100% of the time and should therefore be abandoned is just plain silly. I would hate to see what the carnage in our woods would be like if we didn't already have the high voluntary compliance when it comes to B/O. Just imagine that! There are some that would try to convince us that there would be no difference. Don't you believe it for a minute. Doc

Pretty scary stuf ..... eh?

For many of my years of work, I was fortunate enough to be able to set my own hours. I used to start work at 4:00 am, and get out at 2:00 (overtime was a standard part of the day). I was home at 3:00. So I've always been able to satisfy my "forest fever" as somebody put it. I have to admit that I have been blessed with a pretty darn good life. Now that I've entered retirement, things have gotten nothing but better. The only thing holding me back now is some of the crappy weather we are getting lately. Other than that, I pretty much do as I damn well please ..... lol. LIFE IS GOOD!!!!! Doc

First of all, thank you for not fixing something that wasn't broken. I formatted my reply the way I did because I wanted to. Next, I want to suggest that you look up the definition of ethics so that in the future you can use the term correctly. There is nothing in that definition that regards "opinion", and there is nothing that regards laws or the legal system in any way. So your quote from Ted (and your additional comments) are dead wrong when you continue to try to link ethics with the law. Also I'm sorry to hear that you think that using judgement is some kind of bad thing, but I think that you really are a bit more judgemental than you are letting on (at least I hope so). Unfortunately some people have taken a perfectly good word and assigned some inappropriate and incorrect negative connotations to it. But once again, look up the actual meaning and you will see that it is not something to be avoided. Look, I don't always get the meaning of words correct, but sometimes it is useful to understand the meaning of terms that comprise the core of the discussion. It simply helps avoid misunderstanding and false arguments. Also, I will say that I have a lot more respect for people who will speak up against something they find repugnant without hiding behind legality as the sole crutch and criteria for their code of ethics and refuse to take a stand. Also, there is nothing honorable about sitting silently without speaking out against something that you find personally offensive. If you have any kind of code of ethics and you feel that some practice or attitude crosses over that line, I would hope that you would not just sit there like a lump simply because it has never been turned into law. Regarding your last paragraph, I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about. Do you have some other little secret subject going here that I have not addressed yet? I'm trying to respond to this additional 19 minutes of TV program based on the sparce info that you have provided. Until I can actually see those vital 19 minutes, that's all I can do for now. Your brief description of that program along with what I saw in that clip, and also the comments you have added are things I totally disagree with to put it as courteously as I can. I have said so and I have explained why. So what "subject as a whole" are you talking about that I have failed to address? Doc

Ha..... I guess we just look at things differently and will have to declare an impasse. I recognize how the state worms it's way into all facets of our lives. My view is that some of it is necessary and some of it simply is a true pain and bordering on governmental abuse. I have a hard time looking at a blaze orange law and seeing it as some sort of individual freedom issue. We have far too many things that are truly impingements on our freedoms to cheapen that thought by applying that argument when discussing the supposed inconveniences of blaze orange. So at any rate, It's obvious that neither one of us are likely to change positions, and I guess I have exhausted all my arguments for B/O. So I guess, as they say, we will just have to agree to disagree. Doc

Actually, when the percentages have that big a disparity, I think they tell a huge story. I believe you are correct that we (NYS) have a huge level of compliance already which makes those numbers even more spectacular. This small minority of hunters accounts for an over-sized number of shootings. There is a clear cause and effect relationship when viewed in that light. As far as the actual effectiveness of a B/O law, I would have to be coming off as some sort of prophet to pretend to know the answer to that for sure. I also don't know anybody who can credibly say that it would not be effective. When I look at the numbers, I would say that logically it should cut the quantity of shootings because clearly many of them are due to lack of definitive visibility. I'm not sure what else you can go by other than the actual records.

Yes, there is definitely an ethical consideration to making sure that the gun is hitting where you're aiming. But there also is a practical reason too. You spend a lot of time trying to put just the right deer in front of you. It doesn't make sense to take chances on your gun sight being the weak link that wastes all that time and effort and perhaps spoils the opportunity of a lifetime. It may be a bit painful, but it is a necessary ritual each year. Doc

That's what I'm using for a computer desk. I have 12 feet of continuous deck space. The back-splash feature is a great thing for keeping things from rolling off the back to be lost forever. However, I am not all that sure as to how it would hold up to heavy, hard (metallic), things being banged around on top of it. Doesn't that stuff chip, dent, and flake rather easily. I'm not too sure how good of a utility surface it would actually make. I guess it all depends on what kinds of things that would be worked on. I think I recall that the bench would be used for working on car parts???? I don't think that surface would hold up to that kind of abuse. It sure would make a heck of a re-loading bench though .... lol. Doc

Sorry, I'm just trying to stay on track in this shifting debate. I lost my scorecard somewhere .... lol.

Smashing deer???? What kind of weapon are you hunting with ..... a post mall? ;D I know, you thought that term carried a little more emotional weight, and was guaranteed to win the point ..... lol. However, it did provide a humorous visual. Kind of like indicating that those that don't particularly like the taste of antlers are "ignorant". There is one thing I will say for these AR arguments, they sure are entertaining.

Lol.... and I guess he should know about that particular aspect of ethics. Seriously however, since you have brought up the topic, to me there is a certain amount of mental laziness in people who let a bunch of politicians decide what is right and what is wrong about how we conduct our hunting or our lives for that matter. Yes, the law is the arbitor as to whether we have done something punishible and it is a mandated code that we are forced to abide by which kind of keeps some sort of order in our world. However, if that is the only requirement that one has to determine how they judge or evaluate things in their lives, then there is something seriously lacking in the thinking and evaluation process. I find it difficult to believe that you agree with every law. I find it difficult to believe that you don't think there are omissions in the laws. If so, be careful ..... your ethics are showing.....lol. I could be wrong, but I suspect that you actually do have some judgemental and evaluation process that extends beyond the law that you might even call ethics. And guess what ...... there really is nothing wrong with that. And, as a matter of fact it is those kinds of personal evaluations that often created those laws. It's not the other way around. By the way, as you are aware, I have been very careful in each reply to qualify my comments as to the possibility that those comments may have been lifted out of context (From what you are saying, it doesn't sound like that is the case). So I am responding to the ranting in the clip that I saw, and now the explanation that you have supplied which sounds like perhaps it was not taken out of context. So it's amazing just how much you can tell from a 1 minute clip. Hopefully, I will be able to catch the program and get a first hand view of what Mr. Nugent's views really are on hunting ethics. I'm sure that 19 minutes will give me a completely educated opinion ...... : Doc

I suppose that is possible .... that and maybe a bunch of other reasons. But that is a whole lot of supposing. The fact is that we have "rumors" of a bunch of people calling for AR, and still the 1.5 yr olds go down at the same rate. To me it sounds like at best it's a whole lot of lip service without much conviction. Doc I dont see where you are getting that from? The chart I saw a bunch of pages back, seems to show that in the AR areas, the 1.5 take is down by quite a bit. Can you point me in the right direction to the numbers you are drawing your info from? Im looking for numbers from the AR areas, not the state as a whole, btw. Why are you only considering AR WMUs when almost all of the state is non-AR. Your previous reply wasn't about AR areas. I thought we were talking about this general mythical AR acceptance (demand even) across the state. I haven't heard of any sudden drop in 1.5 yr old harvest statewide. Have you? Doc We are looking at what effects ARs have, or why someone would support them, right? Why would you care what 1.5 numbers are in non-AR units? You can only compare pre and post AR numbers for a given area to see why people would support them. I don't know, I was responding to your following reply which is clearly regarding non AR areas: "Maybe they support ARs because they would just rather have the opportunity to shoot bigger, more mature bucks, which they dont have because everyone around them shoots everything brown and all thats around are spikes and forkhorns in their area." I guess the discussion has changed somewhere along the line....lol.

And you are comparing all those silly things to a blaze orange law? Wearing blaze orange is "jumping through hoops"? Lol.... I'm really trying to have a serious discussion here. : If we really want to get the government out of our lives, lets eliminate all those pesky game laws (and stop all that talk about those repressive AR laws). In fact why have any laws at all. Let's all do our own thing. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either does it? Doc Doc

I ignore it because I can't find it. If you have such data, I would appreciate a link to it because as far as I know, may not even be a true statement.

No, I haven't seen the numbers, but I have no doubt that treestand accidents are quite numerous and significant. I'm not so sure that the preventative measures are quite as clear-cut or basically convenient as the blaze orange measure as regards safety. This B/O law requirement has been kicking around for quite a few years now and a lot of states have gone to some version of it. Some day there may be the same kinds of efforts to do something about treestand safety, and perhaps there may be the same level of study and data gathered relative to some specific piece of equipment that may all point to some reasonable preventative law. But right now, we have all that criteria met with a blaze orange proposal. There is data that is hard to ignore as regards the causes of hunting deaths and injuries that point to the fact that blaze orange would have prevented a significant number of them. Links to those studies were provide a bunch of pages back on this thread. So, this is the issue that is annually before us. That is why I am focused on this one. It is the one preventative safety measure that I believe in so completely that I believe it should be a requirement. We have people who find no problem with demanding laws that limit choices in harvesting deer that don't seem to have the same regard for for the humans who hunt them. I'm still trying to figure out the opposition, because most people agree that b/o is a life saver, usually to the extent that they wouldn't go into the woods without it. And yet they don't have a concern that extends beyond themselves. That's mighty cold ..... lol. Seriously though, how can a person convince themselves that b/o is an absolute life-saving requirement for themselves, but the heck with everyone else? You either believe in it or you don't. It's not some kind of fashion statement ..... it does save lives. Doc